Senate runs late into night to complete funding requests

In a meeting that lasted nearly six hours, the SA Senate approved funding for all of the entities that were recommended for funding by the Senate Finance Committee, plus added funding back into the budget for four entities that were declared ineligible by SFC: Women's Resource Center (WRC); Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center (LGBT), Peer Outreach and Mentoring (i.e. the LINKS center) and the Center for Volunteerism and Student Leadership (CVSL). However, the means by which this was done is a parliamentary nightmare that I, for one, don't feel comfortable about. I will go into the funding votes, from the beginning, and discuss all the decisions made. Those of you who fancy yourself to be experts on parliamentary procedure may wish to inject commentary as to how legal this is, and what the ramifications of the process as done are.

After attending to the necessary business of hearing reports and electing replacement senators to fill vacancies, the next item in Special Orders was the SFC funding requests. Most of the groups who applied were recommended for some level of funding. One group, Campus Activities Board, was approved for a token amount of 5 cents per student (or about $1400 total). This recommendation was made because the SFC did not think they were doing anything useful, but since they are a standing committee of SA, they must be funded at some level. Campus Activities Board is the organization that sponsors the Homecoming events at UWM, and has sponsored several other events in the past.

Six other organizations were declared ineligible for SFC funding: These are the organizations, together with a summary of the reasons they were declared ineligible:

Panther Dance Team -- neither a sub-unit of SA nor a critical service as defined in the SFC Bylaws section VII.D
Union Activities Board (8th Note) -- neither a sub-unit of SA nor a critical resource
Peer Outreach and Mentoring (LINKS) -- not a sub-unit of SA, and provides duplicated service already covered by the Peer Mentoring Center in Bolton Hall
Center for Volunteerism and Student Leadership -- not a sub-unit of SA and provides a duplicate service, since SA also provides opportunities for volunteerism and student leadership
Women's Resource Center -- not a sub-unit of SA, provides a duplicate service since SA has a Women's Issues Coordinator. Also, while it is an on-campus resource center not currently funded by SAC, it does not meet the requirements of Section VII.D8, because it does not serve the needs of all UWM students.
LGBT Resource Center -- not a sub-unit of SA, provides a duplicate service since SA has an LGBTQ Issues Coordinator. Also, while it is an on-campus resource center not currently funded by SAC, it does not meet the requirements of Section VII.D8, because it does not serve the needs of all UWM students.

With the exception of the SA Legislative and Executive allocations, two stipulations were put onto every group for which the SFC recommended funding:

I. SA Logo Stipulation: All official advertising/materials of the organization/deparment must prominently display the official SA Logo. The SA Senate will determine when a violation of this stipulation has occurred. A first time violation within any 12 month period will carry a fine of up to $10000, as determined by the SA Senate. Second and subsequent violations of this stipulation within any 12 month period will carry a fine of $10000.
II. Oversight Stipulation: Not including SFC suggestions, significant alterations to proposed budgets or negative alterations to services provided must be approved in advance by the SA Senate. The SA Senate will determine when a violation of this stipulation has occurred. A first time violation within any 12 monthe period will carry a fine of no more than $50000, as determined by the SA Senate. Second and subsequent violations of this stipulation within any 12 month period will carry a fine of no less than $10000 and no more than $50000, as determined by the SA Senate.

Two other groups received additional stipulations:
UWM Athletics: Funding level unconditionally set at $74.00, and to approve $77.75, contingent based on acquiring an additional $250,000.00 annually from the University, and it can not be from Segregated Fees.

Student Activities Office: Amount of funding would not go toward an assistant director.

When the funding requests came up, a question was put to the floor as to whether the groups that were denied funding could even be brought up by the Senate. From the SFC Bylaws:

XV. Senate Approval

A. The Senate may approve, deny or change a recommendation to fund or deny funding to an applicant.
B. The Senate may not fund an applicant whose request for funding was not considered by SFC regardless of the reason for non-consideration.

The argument (presented primarily by Senator Dan Bahr) was that since the organizations were declared ineligible, they were not considered by SFC for funding, and therefore could not be added back in by the Senate. After submitting the matter to the Student Court justice kept on hand to act as Parliamentarian, the ruling was that the determination of ineligibility was effectively a recommendation by SFC to deny funding, which could be changed by the Senate in accordance with Part A. Part B was put in place to prevent an organization from bypassing the SFC process by waiting to submit until after SFC had finished their recommendations, not to give the SFC absolute power to deny a group without Senate oversight.

With that ruling dealt with, the first motion on the floor was to approve the recommendation as presented by SFC. As this requires a 2/3 vote, it failed. Then a motion was made to split off the decision on the six groups denied funding plus UPARK. That motion passed by a majority vote (it did not approve or deny funding). The next motion was to approve the recommendations by the SFC for all other groups, which passed by the necessary 2/3.

After this, a motion was made put the four student resource centers (LINKS, WRC, LGBT and CVSL) into a package and approve them en masse. Heated debate ensued, but this motion failed by one vote.

The next motion was to approve the LGBT center for eligibility. After more heated debate, this passed 21-7.

The next motion, which would approve WRC, had another strange quirk in it. Senator Antwan Jones was not in the room when the roll was called, but he entered as the vote was being counted. When he asked for the right to vote on the matter, he was denied, being told that the votes had been counted (even though they had not yet been announced). Despite that, the motion failed failed 18-10, another close call. As it turned out, his vote would have made it 19-10, which still would have failed.

At this point, a motion was made to adjust the SAC funding, as now it looked like SAC would need extra funding to cover the lost resource centers. After more rancor, the motion was tabled until afterward to see just how much extra funding would be needed.

At this point, it was getting to be 10:40 p.m., and the ballroom was only reserved until 11:00. (A word of advice to whoever reserves rooms for SA: If you are going to reserve the room until 11:00, go all the way and reserve it until midnight, as no one will reserve a room for that hour anyway. True, no one's going to kick you out of that room in the meantime, but at least you don't have the mad panic at 10:40 wondering what to do.) So a motion was made to recess the meeting until another time to be determined by Speaker Voigtlander, so that they didn't automatically reject all unconsidered organizations. Since no one was sure if they could make the meeting time and they couldn't agree on one on the spot, the vote to recess failed 14-16. Thus the meeting continued.

Debate times were constantly being shortened to get things done. So here are the remaining votes in rapid succession:
Package WRC and LINKS and approve them for eligibility: Passed 21-10
Deny eligibility to UAB & Panther Dance: Passed 21-9
Approve UPARK at $9.00, up from the $8.50 recommendation: Passed 25-4
Approve Eligibility for CVSL: Passed 24-5
Approve the four newly eligible organizations at 2006-2007 levels: Delayed to consider amendment
Amendment to stipulate that the funds only be used for student employees: Failed 4-26
Approval of 2006-2007 funding levels: Passed 21-6

Also, in a (literal) last minute action the Concurrent Services Act was passed. This defines the Presidential Cabinet in the Student Senate Bylaws as the President, Vice President, Chief of Staff, Treasurer, Academic Affairs Director, Legislative Affairs Director, and Shared Governance Director.

A complete list of funded groups, their per student funding levels, and an approximate total funding level, will appear later.

SA Senate Meeting November 12: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

It is good to see the Student Association Senate functioning in the expected manner again . . . or is it?

Six vacant Senate seats were filled, which is a good sign. Most of them, as expected, are people invested in the status quo, so the chances of radical change taking place are slim. In this case, however, the process as outlined appears to be working, so I am treating this as a net plus.

The proposed Student Court nominee was not taken up, as she was unable to attend. However, a new Shared Governance Director was appointed and confirmed: Brandon Decker. His confirmation places him in the list of people for whom the separation of powers, were it to be enforced, would be definitively forced to choose either his Senate seat or his new directorship.

Executive Order
This is an amazing loophole so large you can drive a herd of mastadons through it. The Order "ordered" Ms. Prahl to "use any and all private funds" to obtain legal counsel. By framing it as an executive action, it was packaged as a Special Order. The Senate Bylaws, Article II, Section 3d states that Private Account Expenditures are normally done by automatic consent, unless a senator objects, in which case it is pulled and moved to New Business. But it was framed as an Executive Order, which filed it under an executive action, not a Private Account Expenditure automatic consent item. This supposedly triggered Article II, Section 3g:

All executive actions to be included in Special Orders shall follow a specified procedure. The President shall report on the executive actions and upon the completion of the President's report, all items shall be included in t a consent item and approved at that time, unless a senator objects to an item. The Senate may overturn an executive action by a 2/3 majority vote.

By doing it this way, Article V, Section 3b of the Executive Bylaws, which states that "This $2000 [minimum amount in the account] shall be used only for emergency purposes, with approval of 2/3 of the Senate" was bypassed. So now, instead of it taking a 2/3 vote to approve the expenditure, it took a 2/3 vote to prevent the expenditure.

This creates a new potential avenue for exploitation: Fiat by executive action. The President could, if she were unscrupulous, simply decree her will by executive action, and dare the Senate to come up with the 2/3 necessary to overturn it. This would require a more independent Senate than what I have witnessed to date.

Separation of Powers at stalemate
Antwan Jones' Separation of Powers act failed, but the passages in the Senate Bylaws that prohibit senators from serving on the Cabinet are still there, with the dilatory motion to strike them tabled. The idea was that a compromise position was to be drafted, but we will see what compromise can be made.

Senate Finance Committee bylaws approved
The Senate Finance Committee Bylaws were approved. One of the more interesting elements of this process is that it became clear that the senators who sit on SFC don't get to draft them. Rather, they are created by another body who forwards them to University Legal to insure that state laws are being followed, and then they are sent to the full Senate for approval by a 2/3 vote. The problem is that there are 13 members of SFC, including the Vice President, so it is possible for every member of SFC to vote against the bylaws but still have them approved, forcing the people who voted against the bylaws to operate under them.

Ban on breastfeeding in Union offices?
When the "Registered Student Organization Rights Act of 2006" came up for a vote, one of its authors, Senator Dan Bahr, lobbied for it by saying he had passed by one of the University offices and saw a topless woman breastfeeding her child there. This, plus other unspecified inapporpriate activity, was the reason that he wanted the Senate to recommend that the Union Policy Board change its policy on student organization membership and adda clarifying passage that Union offices are intended to be used for administrative purposes only. I will not comment on what Mr. Bahr thought he was doing by peering into Union offices not his own. Instead, I will focus on more salient points. Why even bring this up before the Senate? The other author of this legislation was Robert Stueber, the current chair of the Union Policy Board, and Senator Russel Scott is the UPB vice-chair. Are they so impotent within their board that they could not have brought this matter to the UPB themselves? The document that is being recommended for change is the Student Organization Manual, which is a publication of the Student Activities Office, not the UPB, and does not derive its material from the UPB, so how do the authors and sponsors intend to affect anything by asking the UPB to do anything? In addition, the University Student Court has ruled that the UPB is not a part of Student Association, so what benefit is gained by having the Student Association Senate express their opinion? And while Mr. Bahr in the Q&A session expressed that it was not the intention of the legislation to ban advisors, checking of e-mail or Facebook, other standard uses of the office, enforcement of this policy would not fall to him, but to the UPB, of which he is not a member. This matter passed the Senate and we will see if the UPB chooses to do anything about it.

Conclusion
Overall, procedures were followed (maybe not the correct ones in all cases, but at least they were documented), and the usual pile of legislation got through. But the fact that a new loophole has been created and exploited is ugly, and needs to be dealt with.

Cute little detail about October 29 Senate Meeting

In consulting with sources I have access to who monitor Student Association Senate activities, I noticed one small detail that has yet to receive comment. Apparently, one of the Senators motioned for a recess just before the vote on the SA Bylaws Revision Act was to be taken. The motion failed, and so did the Act, by a vote of 10-8 (as a bylaw change it needed 2/3).

The idea of calling for a recess just prior to a vote creates a rather awkward time during which Senators can be approached by outside interests and given "instructions" on how to vote. Given that the Senators are relatively new to parliamentary procedure (or so we have been told), giving them time to be browbeat by more experienced parliamentarians isn't exactly the best way to inspire confidence.

There is another Senate meeting on November 12. We'll see if this tactic is tried again then.

Looking into the jaws of the SFC Bylaws tiger

I have specifically refrained from looking into the SFC Bylaws changes that were proposed at theSA Senate meeting of October 29, as they are long and tedious. Here is an attempt to decipher what's going on:

The proposed changes to Section II remove the allowance for funding University departments with permanent employees. It also removes this: "The SFC may fund organizations, programs or services (hereafter "applicants") with an emphasis on the following criteria:

A. Supporting the mission of UWM.
B. Providing services to all UWM students.
C. Providing support for ongoing UWM projects.
D. Providing support for UWM leadership development.

Section III has a few changes. It adds language about "alleged" violations, and stated that a decision to deny funding based on alleged allegations is appealable under Section XVII.

Section IV would state that anyone who wants to be nominated to SFC "shall express that wish either in writing in advance to the Speaker of the Senate;" if there is any alternative, it is cut off the copy of the agenda I have. It would remove two senators from SFC from the pool of schools (Arts, Health Sciences, Architecture, Engineering & Applied Science, Nursing, Information Studies and Social Welfare), giving an additional seat to an At-Large senator and another one to Letters & Science, bringing each of them to two appointments. In addtion, four alternates would be appointed by the Speaker, instead of the current two.

Section VI would add two alternates to the Appeals Committee. Instead of these people being appointed by the Senate directly, they would be nominated by the Speaker and approved by a majority vote. Also, the three non-Senator students that are appointed by the Shared Governance Committee would no longer require Senate approval, and the absence of a Chief Justice would cause that position on the Appeals Committee to be held by whichever justice is next on the judicial hierarchy chart.

Section VII rates to be potentially controversial. The changes would limit funding to University departments, organizations with written governing documents, all of SA, including its sub-units and the Senate Allocation Committee. Furthermore, the applicant must "Provide a critical service, as its primary mission, not offered by other campus entities." The current document allows for agencies employing a permanent UWM employee to be eligible as well.

In addition, the changes would list all of the critical services: Norris Health Center, transportation services for students, professional legal assistance for students, student housing assistance, direct administrative support for student organizations, child care services for students, the Athletics Department, and "On-campus student resource center, not currently funded by SAC, whose primary mission is to serve the diverse needs of all UWM students", whatever that means.

Much of the language of VII.E about organizations that move from SAC funding to SFC funding has been removed.

Section VIII removes the requirement that an applicant that wishes to receive funding must complete its application and return it to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs by October 1.

Section X.D adds an interesting line: Insufficient funding through SAC is not a legitimate justification to request a transfer to SFC. I don't have enough background to understand why this line would be added, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Section XI.B is another interesting proposed change: An organization that is deemed eligible as a critical service under section VII above may still be denied funding within SFC's funding priorities.

The next potential firestorm comes in Section XVI, Presidential Ratification. This allows the SA President to veto any individual assignment, and the SFC process is not considered complete until the President has had an opportunity to act on it.

Section XVII has a few changes proposed. The Appeals Committee would get 20 school days to act on the appeal, instead of the current ten. But XVII.E as proposed would seem to contradict this:

If, for whatever reason, the Chief Justice does not convene the meeting within five days of receiving the appeak, the Speaker of the Senate shall unilaterally remove the Chief Justice as Appeals Committee chair and temporarily occupy the position of chair in order to call the meeting and elect a new Appeals Committee chair from amongst the membership. The Speaker will vacate his/her seat upon the new chair being elected. If the Speaker does not call this meeting, the Deputy Speaker shall call this meeting.

I will defer this issue to those who have more experience with the Senate Finance Committee. When I learn more from people I trust on this issue, I will pass it on.

Quick comment on Executive Bylaws

In an attempt to find the original (i.e. unmarked) 2005 bylaws for the Senate Finance Committee, I found the Executive Bylaws for both 2005 and 2006. The 2005 listing is the list that was in effect when the Senate Bylaws were passed, so we can interpret the intent of the passage that has drawn such attention, namely Article VII, Section 1, subsection f: "Senators may not concurrently serve as a member of the Presidential Cabinet or as a Student Court Justice."

From the Executive Bylaws of 2005, Article IV:

Section 1 -- Composition
a. The President shall have the power to create and decide the composition of a Presidential Cabinet.
b. The Presidential Cabinet must include the following positions:

1. President
2. Vice President
3. Secretary
4. Treasurer
5. Chief of Staff
6. Communications Director
7. Academic Affairs Director
8. Shared Governance Director
9. LGBTQ Issues Director
10. Women's Issues Director
11. Legislative Affairs Director
12. Multicultural Affairs Director

c. Further Director Positions created by the President shall be members of the Presidential Cabinet.
d. The President shall designate weather [sic] other officers hired are considered Executive Staff or Cabinet positions.
e. The President may invite other officers to join the Cabinet as he/she sees fit.
f. Cabinet positions shall be considered Executive Staff positions and subject to these By-Laws.
g. Any deputy, advisor, counsel, intern, or similarly titled non-director position is not considered a cabinet position.
h. Any cabinet officer may not concurrently serve as a senator, or court justice.

This definition scheme was in place when the Senate Bylaws were made, and thus determines the intent of what Senate Bylaws VII.1.f was talking about. First, let's look at the people who were, by the 2005 definition, the minimum cabinet:

President Samantha Prahl: No senate position
Vice President Jon Tingley: No senate postion
Secretary Casey Glader: Senator -- Peck School of the Arts
Treasurer Emily Grotz: Senator -- School of Business
Chief of Staff Alicia Bagley: Senator -- Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Communications Director Renee Hayssen: No senate position
Academic Affairs Director Alex Jacobs: No senate position
Shared Governance Director --VACANT
LGBTQ Issues Director Lauren Otte: No senate position
Women's Issues Director Cassy Magar: Senator -- School of Education
Legislative Affairs Director Kyle Durestein: No senate position
Multicultural Affairs Director Chris Wiley: Senator -- Peck School of the Arts

Now add to this the provision of 2005 Executive Bylaws IV.1.c: "Further Director Positions created by the President shall be members of the Presidential Cabinet."

School Spirit & Campus Activities Director Sarah Lesky: Senator -- Letters & Science
Diversity Director Sergio Piceno: No senate position

We can go no farther in terms of the exact wording of the bylaws, because the rest are added at the discretion of the President. But even with this more restrictive wording, there are still six positions that are double-booked in violation of the intent of the Senate Bylaws, with more people who are wearing two hats when you add office managers, assistant directors and the like.

Fireworks at SA Senate meeting

Well, there are still some things left to be discovered, but the lack of Russ Rueden at the Student Assoication Senate meeting was apparent.

To begin with, there was an actual call for a no-confidence vote against Russ Rueden. It made it to a vote, but failed. (That isn't surprising, since it takes a 2/3 vote to pass.)

There was an actual appointment made to the Student Court as well. This makes it so that there are enough justices (barring a resignation) for the Court to actually do things. No word yet on if Drew Baryenbruch's issue will be taken up as a result.

There was a call to add an annual audit requirement to the Senate bylaws. I'm not sure what happened with that, I will post what did happen when I get reliable information on that.

The big fireworks came over a proposed revision to the Senate Bylaws that would have removed the prohibition of Senators holding executive or judicial positions (transcribed exactly from the Agenda, except that I am using full names are given for all authors and sponsors):

2006 SA Senate Bylaw Revision

Author: Senator Daniel Bahr, Senator Russel Scott

Sponsors: Speaker Amanda Voigtlander, Senator Tyler Draheim, Senator Brandon Decker, Senator Caleb Kopczyk, Senator Tobin Huibretsge, Senator Zachary Nesgoda, Senator Nikki Pfeifer

WHERAS, nearly half of the SA Senate could be unseated as a result of the aforementioned action not being taken.

WHERAS, past efforts to separate the branches have been unsuccessful and have lead to the vacancy of up to eighteen seats on the SA Senate.

WHERAS, those most willing to volunteer their time in the legislative branch would be disenfranchised from prospective employment in the executive branch with out the aformentioned action being taken.

WHERAS, current SA executive branch members who have already planned on serving in both branches woule be denied their understood right to do so.

WHERAS, separation of the branches at this time would lead to a denial of due process on behalf Senate member who currently serve in both branches.

WHERAS, the Student Association amended the Executive Bylaws on July 25th, 2006.

WHEREAS, there is a need for the legislative language to be consistent in order to prevent any misinterpretation of the bylaws.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Student Association Senate Bylaws be amended by striking out the following passages: Article VII, Section 1, sub-sections (f)(g).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Association Senate Bylaws be further amended by striking the following passages: Article III, Section (b) "second";
Article III, Section (b) "in September".

THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Student Association Senate Bylaws be amended by adding the following passage to Article III, Section (e): ", and the Speaker approves."

The first change would remove the passages in the Senate Bylaws that contradict the Executive Bylaws. Here is the sentence from which the wording of the second change is to be struck: "The Freshmen Senators shall be filled with this same process and occur at the second senate meeting in September." The change would make it, "The Freshmen Senators shall be filled with this same process and occur at the senate meeting." Neither makes any sense, even in context, but the change was supposed to allow Freshmen Senators to be appointed at any meeting, not just the one mandated.
And the final change would require that the Speaker approve the filling of a seat by the nomination process.

After much debate, this didn't get the 2/3 vote needed to enact a bylaw change. This led to the next item up for debate:

Separation of Powers Act
Author: Senator Antwan Jones

Sponsors: Papa-Kwesi Coleman

Supporters: Carlo Albano, Nina Vandenhounter, Chris Larson

WHEREAS: a number of student representatives in the Student Association currently hold positions in both the Student Senate and the Presidential Cabinet; and

WHEREAS: the Senate Bylaws in Article VII, Section 1-f state, "Senators may not concurrently serve as a member of the Presidential Cabinet or as a Student Court Justice; and

WHEREAS: the Senate Bylaws take precedence over all other SA bylaws under the SA Constitution Article VII; and

WHEREAS: the protection of the separation of powers in the Student Association is vital to the integrity of the Student Association; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED THAT: all SA Representatives holding positions in both the Student Senate and the Presidential Cabinet must resign from one of the two posts within 5 business days.

This was the act that the previous bylaw change was supposed to circumvent. We at Well Armed Sheep aren't the only ones pointing out the problem that was lurking in the Senate Bylaws. This led to even more debate, and during a motion to table this indefinitely, three senators (Antwan Jones, Mark Talatzko and Andrew Hable) left in protest. As the senate was barely above quorum before they left, a quorum call was made at this point, and the meeting ended when quorum failed.

Next time, I'll post the full agenda, including the provision that would have put another $1,000.00 into the Presidential salary for the current year.

Just when you thought there was nothing there...

Remember when I asked if anyone was going to try to come in at 6:00 and run the meeting that was never announced? Well, that's what happened. Despite the fact that the Fireside Lounge was reset to its original configuration, the Student Senate came in, pushed some chairs around and approved everything.

Actually, "approved" is a bit of a misnomer, since there wasn't much going on beside Speaker Rueden asking if there were any objections to the things presented, and pushing them through. While this makes for short meetings, it defeats the work of the Senate as a deliberative body, where ideas are given a full hearing to weed out the bad ones. Here the bad ideas stayed without objection, even to the point where the Senate Allocation Committee bylaws now require the desecration of its leaders.

People who are monitoring this are encouraged to report any news they find.

Vanishing Student Association

The meeting of the Student Association Senate, scheduled with Reservations and Event Planning Services for 3:00 p.m. today, has been canceled. This is despite the fact that the SA website lists the meeting as beginning at 6:00 p.m, not 3:00. Anyone who has information about whether people arrive at 6:00 to a room that will likely be reset to its original configuration by then is encouraged to share.

In any case, the agenda for this meeting (linked to the above tag) listed the approval of the Senate Allocation Committee (SAC) bylaws as an item to be done. Although a rewrite is promised, there has yet to be any assurance that the most onerous provisions are being removed. These would include the large amount of documentation that a student organization would need to provide in order to receive and retain funds, the provision that student organizations get renewed at the discretion of the SAC Chair and Vice Chair (the document says "desecration", but I don't think that's what they really want -- if they do, I have goat's blood ready to smear on both of them), and the attempt to divorce themselves from Student Court oversight (not that it matters if the Court will never get enough members to function, but it's still good to at least pretend there is an overseeing body).

By my count, the Court is non-functional, the Senate is canceling meetings, so that leaves only one branch of Student Government that at least attempts to function. That's a recipe for disaster if I've ever heard of one.